[pakinjapan]

If you read the interview by Pentaxforums at CP+2019. Look closely at Q9. I am highly speculated (or fantasizing it, you decide!) that they are trying something like that somewhere in the basement of Ricoh building in Tokyo, miniature FF DSLR to the size of SLR. !!!

And on another point, I recently found this image online. Left a crop mirrorless body Vs Right 1972 SLR with mirror box in it + pentaprism on the head. The overall thickness doesn’t look that much difference. It is a crop vs ff body we are seeing here.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/omd-em5/ZCOMPOM1TOP.JPG

1. Is it possible concerning the technology at hand today to have FF DSLR built in the size of the KP body? (and still can do everything KP or K3II does.) I remember reading something similar and back then one of the speculations was the SR system, but now as we see from Sony A7III. It has a built-in 5-Axis image stabilization. Sony proves that it possible now.

2. what needs to be sacificed to achieve such a small size?
I am just thinking out loud here. Let me know your thoughts.

I am more focus on physical size and weight of the Digital FF body today because that will make or break me with the brand. Hope it won't be turned to Mirrorless vs DSLR things. Focus on what possible, not possible to make it physically as small/light as a good old-time SLR body.

---

Last edited by pakinjapan; 03-14-2019 at 05:34 PM.

[UncleVanya]

Sony A7 seems pretty small. Granted it would be thicker and perhaps a little taller for the pentaprism but if they use the special swing retract method of the k1 they might pull off something not much larger than the kp.

[jimr-pdx]

SR mechanism +screen +flange distance would give you a feel for minimum thickness. I don't known those values but I doubt the K-1 has a load of wasted space within..

[stevebrot]

And on another point, I recently found this image online. Left a crop mirrorless body Vs Right 1972 SLR with mirror box in it + pentaprism on the head. The overall thickness doesn’t look that much difference. It is a crop vs ff body we are seeing here.

Yes, that is a true comparison and those of us who own similar film cameras can attest to the similarities of size. A more telling comparison might be a Sony A7III which presents with much large package than the OM1 despite its short register distance. The depth is due to the sensor, SR mechanism, shutter, rear LCD, and multiple layers of electronics. The 'Φ' symbol on the K-1 and other Pentax models should give some indication how much of that camera's depth is digital "stuff" not found in film cameras.

As for Q9 and its answer...I see nothing there to indicate any plans for a super compact FF camera. Most of the mirrorless competition is APS-C and smaller.


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 03-14-2019 at 06:14 PM.

[THoog]

1. Is it possible concerning the technology at hand today to have FF DSLR built in the size of the KP body?

Possibly, if you give up Shake Reduction.

(and still can do everything KP or K3II does.)

Probably not, because of Shake Reduction. And the KP's smaller battery, already a point of criticism, probably won't last long with a FF sensor.

I remember reading something similar and back then one of the speculations was the SR system, but now as we see from Sony A7III. It has a built-in 5-Axis image stabilization. Sony proves that it possible now.

The Sony proves it is possible in a body with twice as much usable volume, thanks to the MUCH shorter registration distance (18mm versus 46.45mm). If you look at this comparison, you can see how much room the A7III has behind the sensor plane, compared to the KP (the film plane mark on the KP is next to the C1 on the right mode knob).
Compare camera dimensions side by side

Hope it won't be turned it to Mirrorless vs DSLR things.

But YOU started by bringing the A7III into it!!!

[stevebrot]

As for what might be sacrificed to make for a truly compact FF dSLR, the answers might run something like this:

• Make the rear LCD an add-on accessory with menu changes done when tethered only by default
• Trim the bottom down by making the PDAF system an add-on accessory. That's right, AF as option only with any in-body motors being part of the AF module...a grip perhaps
• No IBIS
• Trim battery size to the absolute minimum to reduce size and weight, should be possible with LCD and AF gone

Such a camera might be close in size to the original *ist D, though a little more svelte overall. Additional bulk might be trimmed by removing the motorized shutter cocking mechanism in favor of manual cock ala Epson RD1. Perhaps Cosina/Voigtlander might be interested in taking on the project since they made the Epson and based it broadly on the general CT-1 Super platform.


Steve

[D1N0]

Easy to do if you make it mirrorless

[reh321]

Additional bulk might be trimmed by removing the motorized shutter cocking mechanism in favor of manual cock ala Epson RD1. Perhaps Cosina/Voigtlander might be interested in taking on the project since they made the Epson and based it broadly on the general CT-1 Super platform.

Steve

Is that meaningful? On a film camera, they found a way to use the energy used to advance film to also cock the shutter; on a digital camera, is cocking done by anything larger than a solenoid? I would expect a manual mechanism to take more space than the automatic mechanism does.

[pakinjapan]

A piece of more information since some mentioned about Flange distance which I agree, it is very important on this topic.

[Flange distance / total thickness - all in mm]
A7III 18 / 74
KP 45.46 / 76
K1 45.46 / 85.5
K1000 film 45.46 / 48. * Edit

Sony uses up to 56mm after subtraction of its Flange distance.
KP uses 30.54mm
K1 uses 39.5mm
.

There is no way K-mount body will get to the same thickness as of 7AIII but KP/76mm is pretty close to 74mm of A7III. And my main point is, Can K1 go down to a similar size as of KP?

[pschlute]

The K-1 has has a larger mirror due to it being a FF sensor camera. Extra engineering was needed so that when it lifts up it articulates so to avoid hitting the back of the lens. Any attempt to make a new FF DSLR smaller will have the same problem to overcome.

[jackassp]

What if it is a mirrorless FF camera, something like the Nikon Z7 or Z6, this is much smaller.

[WPRESTO]

Several have noted that mirrorless is the viable option for a smaller/lighter FF. Consider the recently introduced Canon RP FF mirrorless. Compared to the Pentax K1 II the Canon is a slightly less wide, half an inch flatter, a full inch shorter, but critically LESS THAN HALF THE WEIGHT. Canon has a big advantage = all of it's EF lenses are 100% electronic, so an electronic adapter allows all those lenses to be used with full retention of all features on their new mirrorless bodies. The majority of legacy Pentax lenses have mechanical aperture levers and many Pentax AF lenses have only mechanical AF actuation. Devising an adapter that would operate those might be impractical if not impossible. Considering the huge selection of older K-mount lenses and the very limited number of modern K-mount lenses from after-market manufacturers. the loss of back-compatibility of a mirrorless Pentax body with a different lens registration distance would be unacceptable, and that places some restrictions on the size of a FF Pentax mirrorless body = Canon can/did introduce a new lens mount with a shorter lens registration but Pentax cannot.

[tvdtvdtvd]

the loss of back-compatibility of a mirrorless Pentax body with a different lens registration distance would be unacceptable, and that places some restrictions on the size of a FF Pentax mirrorless body = Canon can/did introduce a new lens mount with a shorter lens registration but Pentax cannot.

Without question, Ricoh is in a position of damned if you do, damned if you don't in regards to the K-mount when considering
mirrorless options. Sony mirrorless, et al, shooters already have access to Pentax glass via glassless adapters. A K-mount
mirrorless body would not likely sell to anyone but current Pentax owners. More and more, I think Ricoh would be best served
by adopting a new mount if/when they decide to release a FF mirrorless. Yes, it would be hard on current Pentax shooters but
I do think it would be much more appealing to potential new Pentax customers and much more viable long term.

Next question is Pentax proprietary mount or something universal? I say Ricoh should go L-mount. Straight away the lack
of available lenses largely disappears, including all those Sigma lenses many lust for. To that, Ricoh could:

Make a really cracking good K-mount adapter. Why couldn't an adapter have a built in motor to handle the mechanical
aperture connection? Include that really cracking good K-mount adapter free of charge with new FF mirrorless sales as
an incentive to existing Pentax customers, at least initially.

A more radical approach might be to offer a body with interchangeable mounts modules, not unlike the GXR.
Expensive to design and produce but opens the potential to use almost any mount 'natively'. Pentax could offer
K-mount and L-mount modules, third parties could offer other mount modules.

Another radical option could be to release two identical bodies at the same time, the only difference being the
mount. One K-mount FF mirrorless and one L-mount, then let the buying public decide which way Ricoh should
move forward.

No easy way going forward but we need to ask, just as I'm sure Ricoh is asking itself: If a K-mount DSLR didn't
appeal to the general public before mirrorless, why would a K-mount mirrorless appeal now?

[WPRESTO]

Without question, Ricoh is in a position of damned if you do, damned if you don't in regards to the K-mount when considering
mirrorless options. Sony mirrorless, et al, shooters already have access to Pentax glass via glassless adapters. A K-mount
mirrorless body would not likely sell to anyone but current Pentax owners. More and more, I think Ricoh would be best served
by adopting a new mount if/when they decide to release a FF mirrorless. Yes, it would be hard on current Pentax shooters but
I do think it would be much more appealing to potential new Pentax customers and much more viable long term.

Next question is Pentax proprietary mount or something universal? I say Ricoh should go L-mount. Straight away the lack
of available lenses largely disappears, including all those Sigma lenses many lust for. To that, Ricoh could:

Make a really cracking good K-mount adapter. Why couldn't an adapter have a built in motor to handle the mechanical
aperture connection? Include that really cracking good K-mount adapter free of charge with new FF mirrorless sales as
an incentive to existing Pentax customers, at least initially.

A more radical approach might be to offer a body with interchangeable mounts modules, not unlike the GXR.
Expensive to design and produce but opens the potential to use almost any mount 'natively'. Pentax could offer
K-mount and L-mount modules, third parties could offer other mount modules.

Another radical option could be to release two identical bodies at the same time, the only difference being the
mount. One K-mount FF mirrorless and one L-mount, then let the buying public decide which way Ricoh should
move forward.

No easy way going forward but we need to ask, just as I'm sure Ricoh is asking itself: If a K-mount DSLR didn't
appeal to the general public before mirrorless, why would a K-mount mirrorless appeal now?

BUT:
1) Can Ricoh obtain a license to use the L-mount, and at what cost?
2) Can a mechanism for operating a mechanic aperture lever AND a screw-AF AND an electronic AF be fitted into an adapter? I'm skeptical.

[RobA_Oz]

2) Can a mechanism for operating a mechanic aperture lever AND a screw-AF AND an electronic AF be fitted into an adapter? I'm skeptical.

The answer is undoubtedly “Yes”, but probably not within the size people would find acceptable.